Except AWS does a whole lot more than just let you rent generic EC2 instances by the hour. They have sooo, sooo, sooo many custom services that their lock-in is huge. It would be extremely painful for any sizable customer on AWS to switch (my previous comment on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20339381).

No such lock-in exists with WeWork. In fact the entire reason for WeWork's existence is it doesn't have lock-in.

>> No such lock-in exists with WeWork. In fact the entire reason for WeWork's existence is it doesn't have lock-in.

This isn't true for their expanding customer base: Businesses who are paying for blocks of co-working memberships to expand through services rather than finding new leases themselves. There is significant lock-in when this occurs, as people may move close to those WeWork locations, arrange their life around it, etc.

That's also my understanding of their pitch; have we seen any evidence it's actually happening?

Anecdotally in Seattle it is absolutely happening. My small business is one of many that is expanding into these short-term spaces due to flexibility. Who knows if it's actually working well, but I've seen many "sub-offices" at the co-working space where I lease two desks for my employees.

Stratechery digs more into this comparison, which really helped me understand the value of WeWork.

https://stratechery.com/2019/the-wework-ipo/

That’s the aws of 2008. If you think that’s still what they do I would suggest revisiting your view. It’s not a very good comparison. I’d prefer to think of wework in the same ways that some might of thought of Enron.